Biomedical subjects

James D Rawn

Publications and source records attributed to James D Rawn.

22 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2003

Biological vs. mechanical aortic root replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Although age and co-existing coronary disease are major determining factors when deciding valve choice (mechanical vs. biological) in simple aortic valve replacement, no studies have documented selection criterion for biological (BIO) vs. mechanical (MECH) aortic root prosthesis. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-one consecutive patients underwent elective aortic root replacement with either BIO (homograft, n=111, Freestyle, n=25) or MECH composite grafts (n=85). Median age in BIO was 53 years and in MECH 54 years (P=NS). Groups were similar in gender, NYHA class and ejection fraction (BIO, EF=59% vs. MECH, EF=55%), but the need for concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) did differ between groups (MECH=35% vs. BIO=17%, P=0.003). Mean follow-up was 42+/-28 months for mortality and 39+/-28 months for morbidity. RESULTS: Full root replacement was performed in 213 patients (96%) and hemi-root in eight (4%). The most common underlying etiologies were annulo-aortic ectasia (n=82, 37%), calcified-degenerative (n=73, 33%) and bicuspid/congenital aortic valve disease (n=39, 18%). Operative mortality was 1.5% for BIO and 2.4% for MECH (P=0.5). By univariate analysis there was a trend towards greater 5-year survival in BIO (92.4% vs. 88.2%, P=0.068). By multivariate analysis, increasing age (HR=2.4, P=0.003), previous valve replacement (HR=4.7, P=0.024), concomitant CABG (HR=3.7, P=0.032), and perioperative stroke (HR=9.9, P=0.0005) were all independent predictors of late death. The 5-year freedom from valve-related complications was similar in both groups (BIO=93% vs. MECH=86%, P=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Elective aortic root replacement is an exceedingly safe operation. At mean follow-up of 4 years, there is no meaningful difference in early or mid term valve-related results between BIO and MECH aortic root replacement. Continued evaluation for late valve-related complications in this cohort will be necessary to determine the advantages, if any, of one prosthesis over the other.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Transcriptional profiling and growth kinetics of endothelium reveals differences between cells derived from porcine aorta versus aortic valve.

OBJECTIVE: Valvular tissue and aorta calcify at different rates when placed as fresh homografts or cryopreserved allografts. Furthermore, differences between valvular endothelial cells and aortic endothelial cells are not well appreciated. We established primary cultures of valve and aortic endothelial cells derived from swine and tested transcriptional and proliferative differences on various extracellular matrices. METHODS: Transcriptional profiling was performed on primary cultures of porcine valve and aortic endothelial cells. We extracted total RNA from both cell types and created cDNA libraries. We scored for 847 genes important in signal transduction pathways, and measured their expression on valve and aortic endothelial cells. To determine if there were functional differences between aortic and valvular cells, their growth rate was determined by cell counting on various extracellular matrices. RESULTS: Of 847 genes investigated, 69 (8.1%) were transcriptionally active on aortic endothelial cells and 89 (10.5%) on valve endothelial cells. Common to both cell types were 55 genes, which represents 79.7% (55/69) of activated genes on aortic endothelial cells and 61.8% (55/89) of those in valve endothelial cells. Remarkable features of the analysis included Ephrin ligand and receptor specificity for cell type, a potential fibroblast growth factor autocrine loop in both cell types, as well as upregulation of the platelet-derived growth factor receptor in valvular cells. Aortic endothelial cells were noteworthy of upregulation of vascular endothelial cell growth factor-B and vascular cell adhesion molecule. Proliferation analysis revealed that valve endothelial cells grew more rapidly (12-fold over control) than aortic endothelial cells (3-fold over control). Furthermore, valve endothelial cells proliferated most rapidly on gelatin or collagen, whereas aortic endothelial cells were most proliferative on lysine or laminin. CONCLUSIONS: Valve and aortic endothelial cells have different transcriptional and proliferative profiles. The knowledge of these differences may be an exploitable strategy in the future rational design of artificially engineered valve surfaces and in the study of the valve antigenicity, immunogenicity and structural failure.

Animals↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Management of mild aortic stenosis during coronary artery bypass surgery: an update, 1992-2001.

BACKGROUND: "Prophylactic" aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with asymptomatic, mild-to-moderate aortic stenosis (AS) at the time of CABG is controversial. In 1994, we reported our initial experience involving 44 patients and have now updated our series in an attempt to further evaluate outcomes. METHODS: Between January 1992 and July 2001, 100 consecutive patients underwent reoperative AVR following previous CABG. Forty patients had their initial surgery at the Brigham & Women's Hospital (BWH) and 60 patients had their coronary surgery elsewhere. None of the 40 BWH patients had a mean valve gradient greater than 25 mmHg at the time of CABG. RESULTS: The mean time interval from CABG to AVR for the entire group was 9.0 years (range: 1.4-21 years). Overall operative mortality (OM) was 7% including 5 deaths (10.2%) among 49 patients requiring additional CABG at the time of AVR and 2 deaths (3.9%) among 51 patients without additional coronary artery intervention. This OM rate was a notable decrease from our earlier report of 18.2% (P = 0.07). Furthermore, operative mortality decreased progressively from 15.4% in 1992-1993 to 0% in 2000-2001 (P = NS). CONCLUSION: The OM of reoperative AVR following CABG has fallen in recent years. Given the relevance of newer techniques and approaches, it may be reasonable to adopt an expectant management approach in patients with asymptomatic mild-to-moderate AS (i.e., mean systolic gradient less than 25 mmHg) at the time of CABG.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Critical role of inferior vena caval filter placement after pulmonary embolectomy.

Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is a definitive treatment for patients with severe pulmonary embolism (PE). Postoperative placement of an inferior vena caval filter (IVCF) may prevent recurrent PE. We present a patient who underwent pulmonary embolectomy in whom postoperative placement of an IVCF was postponed due to hemodynamic instability and severe hemorrhage. Recurrent PE was recognized 12 hours after the initial surgery, and required reoperative pulmonary embolectomy. This report documents that recurrent PE can occur early after pulmonary embolectomy even in the presence of coagulopathy. Therefore, concurrent IVCF placement should be considered during or immediately after pulmonary embolectomy to prevent recurrent pulmonary embolism.

Embolectomy↗